Smith & Figueiredo • Melbourne Congress: Acacia
TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1504–1506
Conserving Acacia Mill. with a conserved type: What happened
in Melbourne?
Gideon F. Smith1 & Estrela Figueiredo2
1 Office of the Chief Director: Biosystematics Research & Biodiversity Collections, South African National Biodiversity Institute,
Private Bag X101, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa / H.G.W.J. Schweickerdt Herbarium, Department of Plant Science, University
of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002 South Africa / Centre for Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de
Coimbra, 3001-455 Coimbra, Portugal
2 Department of Botany, P.O. Box 77000, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, 6031 South Africa / Centre for
Functional Ecology, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Universidade de Coimbra, 3001-455 Coimbra, Portugal
Author for correspondence: Gideon F. Smith, [email protected]
Abstract We here document what happened in Melbourne, Australia, in July 2011, regarding the confirmation of the inclusion
of Acacia Mill. with A. penninervis as its conserved type in the Vienna Code. The procedures followed by the Nomenclature
Section of the XVIII International Botanical Congress (IBC) are outlined and briefly described as far as they pertain to Acacia.
The 2005 outcome of the controversial proposal to retypify Acacia Mill. from an African to an Australian type was confirmed
by the Nomenclature Section following the ratification of the 2006, Vienna, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
(ICBN or Code) including the entry for Acacia. This, and other, decisions of the Nomenclature Section were in turn ratified
by the final closing plenary session of the IBC held on 30 July 2011. The now-effective Code (incidentally in the future the
International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants) emanating from the XVIII IBC, will therefore include Acacia,
with a conserved type, in the Appendix dealing with “Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda”. If the traditional classification system is followed that applies the name Acacia in a broad sense to an assemblage of legume species comprising a
number of subgenera, this decision holds no implications at generic rank. However, should the alternative classification which
segregates a broadly defined Acacia into a number of genera be followed, then the name Acacia would apply in a strict sense
to the mainly Australian wattles (formerly Acacia subg. Phyllodineae, now Acacia subg. Acacia).
Keywords Acacia Mill.; International Botanical Congress; International Code of Botanical Nomenclature; International
Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants; Melbourne; Nomenclature Section
INTRODUCTION
Without any fear of contradiction it would be accurate to
state that the retypification of Acacia Mill. with a conserved
type has been one of the most controversial issues that ever came
before a Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical
Congress (IBC) (see Moore & al., 2011 and Thiele & al., 2011
and references in those papers). In the months preceding the
Nomenclature Section of the XVIII IBC that was held at the
University of Melbourne, Australia, from 18 to 22 July 2011, it
was argued by a large group of affected individuals that treating the proposal to retypify Acacia Mill. with a conserved type
as approved, was based on controversial meeting procedures.
This raised the concern of a large group of plant taxonomists
and other stakeholders who found this unacceptable (Moore,
2007, 2008; Moore & al., 2010), and the decision, which resulted in the inclusion of the name Acacia in the Vienna, 2006,
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN or Code)
(McNeill & al., 2006) with a conserved type, was widely criticised. Plant taxonomists, nomenclaturists, and other interested
and affected parties were therefore eager to see how the matter
was going to be dealt with in Melbourne. The Congress organizers, in association with the Bureau of Nomenclature, established that no-one might attend the Nomenclature Section who
1504
was not registered for at least one full day’s membership of the
Congress. There had not previously been any formal restriction
on attendance at the Nomenclature Section (only the converse,
that any member of the Congress might attend the Nomenclature
Section), and certainly at the 2005 Vienna Congress at least one
person had been permitted to register without being a member
of the Congress (J. McNeill, pers. comm.). However, for as long
as there have been Nomenclature Sections meeting separately
from the main Congress, a practice begun in Stockholm in 1950,
Nomenclature Section attendance has generally involved registration for the full IBC, not for one day only; early circulars
distributed to announce the Melbourne Nomenclature Section
and IBC were phrased accordingly. We here document what
happened in Melbourne regarding the confirmation of the inclusion of Acacia Mill. with a conserved type in the 2012 Inter­
national Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, the
new name of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.
WHAT HAPPENED IN MELBOURNE?
Among other decisions taken during the first session of
day one, the Nomenclature Section firstly voted by a large
majority to accept that a 60% majority would be required to
TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1504–1506
reject a recommendation to conserve or reject names so proposed by the General Committee. The rationale for this 60%
“supermajority” requirement to reject a recommendation from
the General Committee was the special status that the Code
gives to General Committee recommendations (Art. 14.14) so
that their rejection might be looked at as analogous to reversing
a previous decision for which it is not uncommon to require
such a supermajority. However, it should be noted that the implications of this is that the Section can approve a matter with
only 40% in favour, and therefore effectively be dictated to by
a minority (Smith & al., 2006).
In order that it may carry out its business of considering
amendments to the Code, each Nomenclature Section has to approve the Code prepared by the Editorial Committee appointed
by the previous Congress as the basis for its deliberations. In
this regard the Section was asked to ratify the Vienna Code as
reflecting the decisions of the 2005 Vienna Congress, and as
the basis for the discussions that would take place for the duration of the Nomenclature Section. [J. McNeill: “This Section
must ratify it [the Vienna Code] as reflecting the decisions of
the 2005 Vienna Congress. I move that we ratify the Vienna
Code.”] Emphasis was placed on the normally routine issue
of accepting the Vienna Code, because many nomenclaturists
were of the opinion that Acacia should not have been included
in the Code, given the controversy that shrouded the vote on
its inclusion in 2006 in the Appendix dealing with “Nomina
generica conservanda et rejicienda”.
Following relatively brief discussion (15 minutes), a vote
was called for from the floor, which was agreed to by the Section through a show of hands. A card vote then took place on
the matter. The Nomenclature Section accepted the Vienna
Code as printed with a 68.4% majority (31.6% against). A total
of 545 individual and institutional votes were cast, with 247
institutional and 126 individuals (total 373 votes) supporting
the acceptance of the printed Vienna Code, as opposed to 136
institutional and 36 individual votes (172 in total) against it.
This acceptance was a critical step for those opposed to the
retypification of Acacia as it would have been preferable to use
the Vienna Code, excluding this retypification, as the basis of
the Melbourne discussions. It bears noting that an analysis of
the geographical breakdown of the voting membership of the
Section, even if it is assumed that all Australian individuals and
institutions voted in favour of accepting the Vienna Code, and
discounting these votes, the Vienna Code would still have been
accepted by a substantial majority (J. McNeill, pers. comm.).
The voting pattern therefore shows that even if some individuals from Australia did take advantage of a one-day Congress
membership to attend and vote at the Nomenclature Section,
in order to vote on Acacia, this did not affect the outcome of
this card vote.
Following this vote that supported the use of the Vienna
Code as printed with more than a 2/3-majority, about 40 minutes were allowed for deliberations on how to deal with the formally published proposals (Brummitt, 2010; Turland, 2011) on
Acacia that could be placed before the Section later in the week.
On Thursday 21 July 2011, at 13:30 and until 14:30, the
Acacia debate was continued. Article 51 Proposal A (Brummitt,
Smith & Figueiredo • Melbourne Congress: Acacia
2010) was heavily defeated in the preliminary mail vote on
published proposals (83% ‘No’ vote). However, five seconders—not four, as the proposer was not present in Melbourne—
supported its discussion. Adoption of the Brummitt proposal
would allow species in the genera Vachellia Wight & Arn. and
Racosperma Mart. to be called Acacia, but using the convention
Acacia (Vachellia) or Acacia (Racosperma), with the second
genus name given in parenthesis. A number of difficulties that
would result if the proposal were to be accepted were pointed
out from the floor. Essentially, up to three genera would have
had to be called Acacia simultaneously, a very non-traditional
approach for which no-one in the Nomenclature Section expressed support. The matter was put to a vote and was again
overwhelmingly defeated through a show of hands. The Turland
(2011) proposal on Acacia was then opened for debate after a
four-person seconded proposal from the floor that it be discussed. Implementation of this proposal would mean that the
name Acacia would be used only for the genus in a broad sense,
i.e., for species from its entire distribution range. When more
narrowly defined genera were recognized, the names Proto­
acacia Mill. (called Acacia up to 2005, and Vachellia since
then) and Austroacacia Mill. (called Racosperma up to 2005,
and Acacia since then) would be used, treated as having been
simultaneously published with Acacia by Miller in 1754. New
combinations in Austroacacia and Protoacacia (or a variant
such as Acanthacacia, as was accepted as a friendly amendment) would not be required, as before 1 January 2011 such
combinations would be treated as having been automatically
established. In debate it was suggested from the floor that this
approach is a very complicated alternative that would essentially result in no species being called Acacia. The proposal was
defeated through a card vote (in favour: 169 votes = 29.91%;
against: 396 votes = 70.09%; total number of votes cast: 565,
i.e., 20 more than on day one when the acceptance of the Vienna
Code as printed was decided).
CONCLUSION
The Section noted and accepted the outcome of the first
card vote that took place on day one of the Nomenclature Section, i.e., to accept the Vienna Code as the basis for its deliberations, as well as the rejection of both alternative proposals
on Acacia later that week. Very few representatives from the
African and South American continents, and the Indian Peninsula—regions that are affected by the retypification—were
present at the Melbourne Nomenclature Section, and they
therefore had little chance of influencing the discussions and
decisions that affected Acacia (see Smith & al., 2010, 2011,
on who amends the Code). All indications are that the Acacia
controversy, which has lasted for the past more than six years,
will continue as a large part of the botanical community and
other stakeholders remain unsatisfied with the present situation
(Moore & al. 2011).
Plant nomenclature progresses every six years at Nomenclature Sections of International Botanical Congresses
through published proposals and the acceptance or rejection
1505
Smith & Figueiredo • Melbourne Congress: Acacia
of the Reports of Standing Committees, to amend and improve
the Code applicable at that time, the Melbourne one being no
exception. Further proposals to amend the Code, including
to have the name Acacia retypified with its original type, the
African A. scorpioides (L.) W. Wight (= A. nilotica Karst.), and
therefore its retypification with Acacia penninervis Sieber ex
DC. removed from future editions, will likely be made and
voted on before and at the next Congress, in 2017 in China. Until then it is our view that those who have to refer to any taxon
of this group do so following the classification that recognises
Acacia s.l. This means that all names of Acacia taxa from its
entire distribution range will continue to be called Acacia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
John McNeill is thanked for providing information on the attendance records of the Melbourne Nomenclature Section, and comments
on a draft of this paper. Nick Turland also kindly suggested improvements and refinements to the paper.
LITERATURE CITED
Brummitt, R.K. 2010. (292) Acacia: A solution that should be acceptable to everybody. Taxon 59: 1925–1926.
McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet, H.M., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L., Marhold, K., Nicolson, D.H., Prado, J., Silva,
P.C., Skog, J.E., Wiersema, J.H. & Turland, N.J. 2006.
1506
TAXON 60 (5) • October 2011: 1504–1506
Inter­national Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Vienna Code):
Adopted by the Seventeenth International Botanical Congress,
Vienna, Austria, July 2005. Regnum Vegetabile 146. Ruggell,
Liechtenstein: Gantner.
Moore, G. 2007. The handling of the proposal to conserve the name
Acacia at the 17th International Botanical Congress—an attempt
at minority rule. Bothalia 37: 109–118.
Moore, G. 2008. Action on the proposal to conserve the name Acacia
at the Nomenclature Section of the XVII International Botanical
Congress in Vienna: Did the ayes have it? Linnean 24(2): 16–20.
Moore, G., Smith, G.F., Figueiredo, E., Demissew, S., Lewis, G.,
Schrire, B., Rico, L. & Van Wyk, A.E. (coordinating authors).
2010. Acacia, the 2011 Nomenclature Section in Melbourne, and
beyond. Taxon 59: 1188–1195.
Moore, G., Smith, G.F., Figueiredo, E., Demissew, S., Lewis, G.,
Schrire, B., Rico, L., Van Wyk, A.E., Luckow, M., Kiesling,
R. & Sousa S.M. 2011. The Acacia controversy resulting from
minority rule at the Vienna Nomenclature Section: Much more than
arcane arguments and complex technicalities. Taxon 60: 852–857.
Smith, G.F., Figueiredo, E. & Moore, G. 2010. Who amends the In­
ternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature? Taxon 59: 930–934.
Smith, G.F., Figueiredo, E. & Moore, G. 2011. Who amends the
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature? A response to
Applequist & al. (2010). Taxon 60: 213–215.
Smith, G.F., Van Wyk, A.E., Luckow, M. & Schrire, B. 2006. Conserving Acacia Mill. with a conserved type. What happened in
Vienna? Taxon 55: 223–225.
Thiele, K.R., Funk, V., Iwatsuki, K., Morat, P., Peng, C-I., Raven,
P.H., Seberg, O. 2011. The controversy over the retypification of
Acacia Mill. with an Australian type—a pragmatic view. Taxon
60: 194–198.
Turland, N.J. 2011. A suggested compromise on the nomenclature of
Acacia. Taxon 60: 913–914.